“Something there is that doesn't love a wall,... He will not go behind his father's saying, And he likes having thought of it so well He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbours.’”

I recall the gist of the poem from my middle education days (I attended Robert Frost Junior High School). Even then we hashed over hidden meanings in Frost’s literary “wall” and it appears we’re no closer to discovering new truths in 2018, for some sort of tangible barrier on America’s southern border is desperately needed to keep a host of problems out. Unfortunately the wall concept has devolved into a sort of political circus with party leaders serving as ringmasters.

Democrats won’t relent on President Donald Trump’s demand to construct an impregnable fence and they wonder why he just won’t drop the subject. Liberal Juan Williams wrote at The Hill, “The fabled [Trump] promise to build the wall is now blocking the president from making an immigration deal with Democrats — a deal that is needed in order to prevent a government shutdown on Friday.

“Any agreement to keep the government open depends on allowing the president to save face as he falls away from the wall.

“There are two big questions at play: Firstly, how much money do the Democrats have to give the president in the name of border security to get him to climb down? Secondly, will right-wing talk radio allow him to make an immigration deal with the Democrats if he shifts to talking about a ‘virtual’ wall?”

Ah, that dastardly wall. Democrats and their media stumpers (like Williams) talk as though a thousand foot high soundproof obstruction stands between the two parties as they fruitlessly maneuver on the federal budget and everything else meaningful in Washington. In reality the big battle is over $18 billion dollars (the stipulated cost of the wall) and the estimated political damage Democrats would sustain if they capitulate on Trump’s signature campaign issue.

In his piece Williams includes the standard arguments against hiring American contractors to erect Trump’s “big beautiful wall” – namely, the public doesn’t support it; it’s impractical; it would infringe on private land (since when do Democrats care about property rights?); it isn’t needed now because arrests are way down and Mexico doesn’t want it, etc…

The Democrats’ baseless blathering is easily countered by pro-wall retorts: it’s relatively inexpensive (compared to the overall costs of illegal immigration); the impractical aspects of it, primarily topographical, can be overcome by other means; private land owners would be generously compensated through eminent domain powers and, if border crossings truly aren’t a problem anymore (number of arrests), then why do Democrats care so much?

And, are we seriously going to ask Mexican leaders what they think of American security measures before we go ahead with them? As long as we’re not breaking any laws to build something on our side of the border, what difference does it make what our southern neighbor’s government thinks of the idea? There are plenty of ways Mexico will pay for it, too – that’s the part Mexican honchos really want to dump guacamole on, isn’t it?

In the scheme of things Trump’s border wall is much more than just a physical hurdle; any such creation conceivably could be overcome by those determined enough to “cross” into the United States. Therefore it’s a psychological barrier as well, one proving to Mexican leaders – and illegal border crossers – that Americans are serious about ending unlawful trespasses.

Needless to say a wall would also make it more onerous for those who’ve already been deported to slither back into this country. Would a wall represent the total solution? No; but if it deters deported aliens from reentering it could save lives, like that of a professional football player who was tragically killed the other day by a man who wasn’t supposed to be there.

Mike Wells reported at ESPN.com, “The suspected drunken driver accused of hitting and killing Indianapolis Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson has been living in the country illegally and did not have a driver's license, the Indiana State Police announced Monday.

“The driver of the truck that killed Jackson and ride-sharing operator Jeffrey Monroe had been using the alias Alex Cabrera Gonsales, the police said in a release. Gonsales' given name is Manuel Orrego-Savala, and he is a citizen of Guatemala. Orrego-Savala had been deported in 2007 and 2009...

“Orrego-Savala, 37, was arrested after trying to flee the scene on foot, according to the Indiana State Police. Orrego-Savala was intoxicated, according to police. He is being held in the Marion County (Indiana) jail while the police work with U.S. federal immigration officials. Investigators are also working with the prosecutor's office to file criminal charges.”

Yes, Edwin Jackson is dead; his life force extinguished by a man whose blood alcohol level was nearly three times the legal limit. It happened because Jackson was at the wrong place at the wrong time -- stopped on the shoulder of a road (apparently because he was sick). Good Samaritan Monroe (the Uber driver) got out of the car to assist Jackson. Illegal alien Orrego-Savala’s pickup truck then slammed into them. By the description in the ESPN report it must have been one heck of a gruesome scene.

Trump tweeted his reaction on Tuesday morning, "So disgraceful that a person illegally in our country killed @Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson. This is just one of many such preventable tragedies. We must get the Dems to get tough on the Border, and with illegal immigration, FAST!”

Critics swiftly condemned Trump for “politicizing” the tragedy, but if the president didn’t speak out, who would? If liberals like Juan Williams wonder what it would take for Trump to “come down” off his wall, how much innocent American blood must be spilled before Democrats concede Trump is right to call for action?

Reasonable people used to call something like Jackson’s untimely death a tragedy. His story won’t be immortalized by a Shakespearean play but here’s hoping it at least receives consideration enough to advance arguments for doing something about illegal immigration – NOW -- and why a “big beautiful wall” on the southern border is a good start to stave off more widows and orphans in the future.

How many Edwin Jacksons and Jeffrey Monroes will it take for Democrats to come down off their political soapboxes and admit America’s laws must be enforced and that there’s a tremendous negative downside to illegal immigration? Was Orrego-Savala a “Dreamer?” If he was initially deported eleven years ago (he was in his mid-twenties), when and how did he get here before that? Who helped him repeatedly jump the border? Might a wall have prevented him from coming back – TWICE – or from coming here in the first place?

If Orrego-Savala was legalized, how many of his relatives could follow him? See the problem?

Further, who will compensate Jackson’s and Monroe’s next of kin for their loss? If Orrego-Savala didn’t have a license he certainly must not have carried insurance. Who will pay the family…the State of Indiana? The federal government? Juan Williams? Nancy Pelosi?

Upon hearing of Jackson’s death the Colts issued a statement: “We were heartbroken to hear the news of Edwin Jackson’s passing. Edwin was loved by all in the Colts organization. We admired his outgoing personality, competitive spirit and hard-working mentality. He was well-respected among all with whom he crossed paths, and he will be greatly missed in our locker room and throughout our entire organization. We also understand that another person lost his life in the accident, only adding to our sorrow on this day. We are shocked and saddened by this tragedy, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families of both men during this difficult time.”

Of course Jackson will be missed. Every time a human life is senselessly snuffed out people react in similar fashion, remembering the irreplaceable things the deceased brought to this world. The fact Jackson was an NFL player placed his case in the national spotlight. One hopes his death will not be in vain and positive change will result, like laws and government policy that could save some future person’s life when they’re stopped on the side of the road.

Will NFL players now speak out against illegal immigration instead of protesting the flag?

It goes without saying America needs political leadership willing to stand up for what’s right. At least some miles of Trump’s border wall would be constructed in Arizona – and there’s a senate race in the Grand Canyon State that could have bearing on the fate of the immigration issue.

The last thing we need are more ruling class elites like disgraced Senator Jeff Flake in Washington. Some say the establishment favorite in the GOP race, Congresswoman Martha McSally, would be even worse than Flake.

Rachel Alexander wrote at Townhall, “McSally is a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a group of moderate Republicans in Congress. McCain is also a member. Her voting record is less conservative than both Flake and McCain. The Heritage Foundation rated her 61 percent this session. They rated Flake 88 percent and McCain 66 percent. The American Conservative Union gives her a lifetime rating of 66 percent. Flake has a lifetime rating of 93 percent and McCain has 81 percent. FreedomWorks gave her a lifetime score of 60 percent. It rated Flake 93 percent and McCain 69 percent. Mark Levin’s Conservative Review gives all three of them an F.

“McSally did not endorse President Trump in the 2016 presidential election. She supports DACA. In 2015, she voted against an amendment to a spending bill that would have ended DACA. In 2017, she sent a letter along with nine other members of Congress to Speaker Paul Ryan, asking him to find a legislative solution to DACA.”

All signs indicate McSally would be more of a problem than a solution for a GOP Congress desperately in need of conservative reinforcements to push through Trump’s MAGA agenda. You never know -- the border wall could hinge on one vote.

Time will reveal how the battle over a border wall ultimately concludes but in the meantime it’s the American public that’s suffering from a lack of urgency from both parties in Washington. A wall simply makes too much sense to abandon – Trump must stick to his guns.